1,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + +
Mystery:Why is the Senate More Liberal than the House? (view source)
Revision as of 14:04, August 10, 2011
, 14:04, August 10, 2011add more about redistricting
*Gerrymandering and voter distribution. There are House seats that are totally safe for Democrats, and some totally safe for Republicans. Charles Rangel’s seat is a perfect example of one the Democrats will not lose for the foreseeable future. With no fear of losing in an election, you only fear is base. There are lots of Republican candidates that could never lose to a Democrat, but could be ousted by the Tea Party. They therefore have to appeal to the Tea Party and not the centrist voter. Same idea with the Democrats. Now, a certain number of these safe seats occur naturally. Cities will tend to be highly Democratic while certain rural areas will always go Republican. Politicians increase the number of these seats through Gerrymandering. It is in a Democrat's best interest to have conservative areas of his district removed and liberal sections added. It is in a Republican’s best interest to go along with it - because his seat becomes safer as well. The Senate is different. You can’t Gerrymander a Senate seat and the laws of probability will give you a much tighter race that is decided by independent voters and not the base. Senators therefore need to appeal to the independent voter over the base. Just look at the last election. The Republicans were supposed to win in Nevada, Delaware and Alaska. In all three cases the candidates focused more on the base than the independent voter and lost.
*Gerrymandering and voter distribution. There are House seats that are totally safe for Democrats, and some totally safe for Republicans. Charles Rangel’s seat is a perfect example of one the Democrats will not lose for the foreseeable future. With no fear of losing in an election, you only fear is base. There are lots of Republican candidates that could never lose to a Democrat, but could be ousted by the Tea Party. They therefore have to appeal to the Tea Party and not the centrist voter. Same idea with the Democrats. Now, a certain number of these safe seats occur naturally. Cities will tend to be highly Democratic while certain rural areas will always go Republican. Politicians increase the number of these seats through Gerrymandering. It is in a Democrat's best interest to have conservative areas of his district removed and liberal sections added. It is in a Republican’s best interest to go along with it - because his seat becomes safer as well. The Senate is different. You can’t Gerrymander a Senate seat and the laws of probability will give you a much tighter race that is decided by independent voters and not the base. Senators therefore need to appeal to the independent voter over the base. Just look at the last election. The Republicans were supposed to win in Nevada, Delaware and Alaska. In all three cases the candidates focused more on the base than the independent voter and lost.
**Redistricting also cuts the other direction. The last two times Congressional districts were redrawn (in 1993 and 2003), Republicans were very strong in state legislatures, meaning that many districts in the USA are calculated to maximize Republican gains and minimize Democratic ones in the individual districts. However, the overall state's balance of voters remains the same; this means that Republicans can more easily achieve a majority in the House than in the Senate, since states which lean Democratic will reflect that in Senate elections, but minimize it in the House.
*As a much smaller body than the House, special interests groups have a greater influence on Senators. Members may come to D.C. with conservative principles but easily get absorbed into the beltway lifestyle.
*As a much smaller body than the House, special interests groups have a greater influence on Senators. Members may come to D.C. with conservative principles but easily get absorbed into the beltway lifestyle.